Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
The High Court has upheld a PATAS judgement that a pcn MUS have 2 dates, a date of issue, and a date of contravention.
Most tickets only have one date on the ticket, and the second date is on the payment slip - this is not acceptable.
I'm claiming back tickets from Reading and Camden, and one is already summonsed. Here's a standard lba to get your money back and show them you are serious.
Your Address
Your address
Your Town
Your Postcode
Parking Enforcement
That Council
Civic Offices
That Town
That Postcode
ALSO BY FAX TO Their Fax Number
<date>
Dear Sirs
LETTER BEFORE LEGAL ACTION
PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE: AB 1234567890, <date of ticket>
I refer to the above PCN. The PCN issued at that time stated that the date of issue/contravention (delete) was <date of ticket>, but did not state a date of contravention/issue (delete).
Following the recent Judicial Review in the matter of Moses v Barnet originally referred to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, I have good grounds to believe that this PCN was not lawfully issued, and thus the £<loadsamoney> penalty paid was not, in fact, due.
Accordingly, I require the repayment of the sum of £<loadsamoney> within seven days of the date of this letter, following which I will issue proceedings in the county court to recover this sum, plus costs and interest, and without further reference to yourselves.
I do not wish to take proceedings if they can be avoided and I therefore look forward to your remittance forthwith.
Yours faithfully
BikerPaul
Most councils will not be in a position to contest the case - it's small-claims, there's a precedent on the matter of 2 dates (in the high court, no less) and they won't get costs even if they try to wheel out the big guns, so it's cheaper for them to pay up.
Same principle as with the banks - set your own timetable, do not let them moud you into theirs.
--
Nationwide started 25/4 Statements 19/5/06 Settled by Tomlin order
Barclaycard started 26/4 Statements 3/6 £350 claimed Claim 6QZ42513 - Default Judgement 1/8/06 - Settled for £358 New claim started for further charges, Prelim letter 3/10 DPA issues included in claim
Capital One started 26/4 Statements 31/5/06 £550 claimedClaim 6QZ46307 - Settled for £552
The Barnet decision stands unless and until struck down.
which council was spinning you this line ? can you post up the text of what they said - suitably washed of your personal details.
The Barnet decision stands unless and until struck down.
which council was spinning you this line ? can you post up the text of what they said - suitably washed of your personal details.
The Barnet case ruled on the validity of RTA 1991 PCNs and the interpretation of the wording in the statute. Any PCNs issued since 31/03/08 would if issued in England/Wales not technically be covered by this ruling since they are not issued under the RTA 1991.
What !!
1) not every council is using TMA as you well know - hence my previous post.
We don't even know at this stage it it is england or wales.
2) TMA still specifies two dates !
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, require (Regulation 9 ) that the pcn should contain:
(a) The name of the enforcement authority.
(b) The date on which the notice is served.
(c) The registration mark of vehicle involved in the alleged contravention.
(d) The date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred.
(e) The grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believed that a penalty charge is payable.
(f) The amount of the penalty charge.
(g) The information that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice was served.
(h) The information that, if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount.
(i) The information that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle.
(j) The manner in which the penalty charge must be paid.
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, require (Regulation 3(2)) that the PCN should contain the information that,
(a) a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and
(b) if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served those representations will be considered; but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
---------------------------
Councils are still messing up TMA PCNs - often in a common way, probably a result of their information sharing. Duff info is bad enough but sharing it is crazy. y
The Barnet case ruled on the validity of RTA 1991 PCNs and the interpretation of the wording in the statute. Any PCNs issued since 31/03/08 would if issued in England/Wales not technically be covered by this ruling since they are not issued under the RTA 1991.
Not having two dates on the ticket has already been proved to be predjudicial to the appealant.
It is the prejudice that is set up that is the important factor, Why me thinks would an appealant have to go through the whole rigmarole of judicial review again.
rta 1991 or tma 2004 ,the time constraints are the same. Just refer back to moses , start the ball rolling again using judge jacksons ruling Which BTW was denied appeal as the LA would lose, again.
What !!
1) not every council is using TMA as you well know - hence my previous post.
We don't even know at this stage it it is england or wales.
2) TMA still specifies two dates !
I didn't say every Council was using the TMA 2004 I said in England and Wales. The RTA required a date of notice where as the TMA requires a date of service. Although its clear that the TMA issued PCNs require two dates the Barnet case is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the TMA 2004.
I didn't say every Council was using the TMA 2004 I said in England and Wales. The RTA required a date of notice where as the TMA requires a date of service. Although its clear that the TMA issued PCNs require two dates the Barnet case is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the TMA 2004.
It should have some bearing as it was this judgement that proved the prejudice.That is why the two dates exist, and before you start I know its the rta 1991. Its the PREJUDICE we are discussing and not the legislation which btw is almost the same.
The case came about because the RTA 1991 did NOT specify two dates it only stated date of notice, as it was assumed that the date of contravention would be the same. That is the reason Councils (who I might add followed a draft DoT pcn) used one date. The TMA 2004 is a completely different kettle of fish since it actually specifies which dates are required. If the Barnet ruling was still valid as lamma tries to insist it would mean that all PCNs now issued are invalid as they do NOT contain a 'date of notice' as required by the RTA 1991 and the Barnet ruling.
The case came about because the RTA 1991 did NOT specify two dates it only stated date of notice, as it was assumed that the date of contravention would be the same. That is the reason Councils (who I might add followed a draft DoT pcn) used one date. The TMA 2004 is a completely different kettle of fish since it actually specifies which dates are required. If the Barnet ruling was still valid as lamma tries to insist it would mean that all PCNs now issued are invalid as they do NOT contain a 'date of notice' as required by the RTA 1991 and the Barnet ruling.
I didn't say every Council was using the TMA 2004 I said in England and Wales. The RTA required a date of notice where as the TMA requires a date of service. Although its clear that the TMA issued PCNs require two dates the Barnet case is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the TMA 2004.
and not every council in england and wales is using TMA -as you well know.
you seem to have an urge to squash any threads that show holes in council paperwork. and there are plenty of holes.
the barnet ruling IS still valid (your comments and those of council do NOT overturn a court ruling) - there are plenty of RTA PCNS out there. and TMA specifies two dates. Also nero nailed it very nicely.
PCNs need two dates, whether TMA or RTA, end of. TMA conditions posted already. Anyone with a single date pcn should fight it.
and not every council in england and wales is using TMA -as you well know.
you seem to have an urge to squash any threads that show holes in council paperwork. and there are plenty of holes.
the bartnmet ruling is still valid - there are plenty of RTA PCNS out there. and TMA specifies two dates. Also nero nailed it.
PCNs need two dates, whether TMA or RTA, end of. TMA conditions posted already. Anyone with a single date pcn should fight it.
I am not trying to squash any threads just stating fact that if the Barnet Case is used in a TMA 2004 PCN appeal it will fail as it is totally irrelevant for the reasons I have stated.
If a TMA 2004 PCN has only one date the TMA statute itself should be used at appeal as it clearly states two dates are required, unlike the RTA which didn't and needed clarification in the High Court.
Any Council outside Scotland NOT using the TMA 2004 to issue PCNs as you have stated are acting outside the law and ANY PCNs issued after 31/03 are invalid.
The whole point of this forum is to give accurate advice that is legally correct and stating that the Barnet ruling could be used to rule on a TMA 2004 case is incorrect.
"Any Council outside Scotland NOT using the TMA 2004 to issue PCNs as you have stated are acting outside the law and ANY PCNs issued after 31/03 are invalid."err - , not all councils are operating decrim parking. there are ones out there using regs from the 80's - as you well know.
"Any Council outside Scotland NOT using the TMA 2004 to issue PCNs as you have stated are acting outside the law and ANY PCNs issued after 31/03 are invalid."err - , not all councils are operating decrim parking. there are ones out there using regs from the 80's - as you well know.
How can a Council issue a pcn if its not decriminalised???
green for god sake, if there is an out then post. Otherwise stop your inane anoying drivel. We are all fed up with it.
Sorry I forgot only you had a right to an opinion and dictated who and what was posted!!
I have a great idea why not all post incorrect information and then slag off anyone who disagrees.......brilliant !!!
Sorry I forgot only you had a right to an opinion and dictated who and what was posted!!
I have a great idea why not all post incorrect information and then slag off anyone who disagrees.......brilliant !!!
right, the idea is this, the op has a problem.
we post up wht we think is the answer. Other people post what they think is an out. we all club together with what we know and suggest an out.
If it works we add this to the knowlge base to be refered to.
You however wish to argue left is right, monday comes after tuesday, and the op walked up the stairs instead of down. In the end there is 53 posts of bollox. Not helpful.
If you have an out then post. If there isn one then erm leave it. The op will get the message.
We all want to help, but butting in and hijaking with bollox doesnt help.
right, the idea is this, the op has a problem.
we post up wht we think is the answer. Other people post what they think is an out. we all club together with what we know and suggest an out.
If it works we add this to the knowlge base to be refered to.
You however wish to argue left is right, monday comes after tuesday, and the op walked up the stairs instead of down. In the end there is 53 posts of bollox. Not helpful.
If you have an out then post. If there isn one then erm leave it. The op will get the message.
We all want to help, but butting in and hijaking with bollox doesnt help.
BTW i am fully expecting to be moderated and even chucked off this forum for speaking up against your attitude if so ,then so be it.
Tickets without 2 dates
MUS have 2 dates, a date of issue, and a date of contravention.
and they know who I am now...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by lamma
